I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[NutCracker]

That is what I have learned talking to idealists on this forum, that and they can't find a way to demonstrate how it is different then materialism...

In idealism common words like 'up' and 'down' lose their meaning, they have us explained. That's different from materialism.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

In idealism common words like 'up' and 'down' lose their meaning, they have us explained. That's different from materialism.

That is interesting. I am willing to learn something. So how do you explain those words using materialism?

 

[NutCracker]

That is interesting. I am willing to learn something. So how do you explain those words using materialism?

I just phoned the Boeing Company, Airbus Industries and some mountaineers for help. They could not give me a working definition for these words but assured me they are fully aware of them having meaning.

Checked with my 2 years old. These words have meaning to her but she gazed when I asked for a definition and uttered "down is when it hurts."

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I just phoned the Boeing Company, Airbus Industries and some mountaineers for help. They could not give me a working definition for these words but assured me they are fully aware of them having meaning.

Checked with my 2 years old. These words have meaning to her but she gazed when I asked for a definition and uttered "down is when it hurts."

So the only working definition of down you have is anthropocentric and not observer independent.
What does materialism actually mean to you?

 

[wea]

In idealism common words like 'up' and 'down' lose their meaning, they have us explained. That's different from materialism.

That is interesting. I am willing to learn something. So how do you explain those words using materialism?

a model of cognition is attempted, for instance, in "Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things"

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

a model of cognition is attempted, for instance, in "Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things"

Thanks.

 

[Dancing David]

Errr.. the idealists here have yet to demonstrate there is something meaningful here to discuss to begin with. That's my point.

I just noted, dear Dancing David, that we see patterns of argumentation we see everywhere we pseudo-knowledge is promoted. Reversal of burden of proof being the latest example.

I apologize, my sarcasm sensor was full of eels and not working

 

[NutCracker]

So the only working definition of down you have is anthropocentric and not observer independent.
What does materialism actually mean to you?

Evolutionist offers evidence for evolution. Creationist is unhappy with the evidence. What has creationist to offer in terms of evidence? Zilch, nada.

materialist offers working definition of 'up' and ' down'. Very sketchy I admit, but I think the point is clear, We all have a consistent notion of what is up and what is down. It works. It allows Boeing to build aircraft that can fly and touch down safely. It allows skyscrapers to be built, and those that lay skyscrapers' foundations to do there work. etc. Idealist is unhappy with the quality of the definition. What has idealist has to offer in terms of defining 'up' and 'down'? Nothing. That's what I mean.. traits.. pseudo-knowledge. Thanks for the data-point! (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.)

Now, be the first one here to explain idealism in a coherent fashion. Explain how it is better and in what way to materialism. Thus far I've seen nothing but word soup that makes the phrase 'idealism is an incoherent position' an error of category. Until such time I'm sticking with my working hypothesis that I alluded to in my parody a page or so back: that idealism is nothing but a bold assertion cloaked in phraseology that is designed to make it sound profound.

(Funny.. I'm having a deja-vu of directing a similar paragraph at 9/11 truthers).

 

[NutCracker]

I apologize, my sarcasm sensor was full of eels and not working

Appreciated. I apologize for my snide remark at you.

Let me try to explain where my sarcasm comes from a bit. Briefly.

First there's the puzzlement. Then there is the joy of the spectacle of the tap-dancing that ensues when the hard rocks of reality are thrown at a crackpot. Then when, explanations still fail to be put forward, the phase of ridicule commences.

I've been scratching my head while lurking in this thread what characteristic of idealism would set it aside from woo like physics crackpottery. Well, I'm still scratching my head.


ETA: while still in the clarifying mood. Let me expand a bit on barrel of a gun sarcasm. I've never been at the wrong end of a gun. A friend of mine has. I myself have been at the wrong and of a knife (street robbery). And I can tell.. the experience is very very real. It would get me to drop whatever profound, earth-shattering insight I might have about the nature of reality instantly.

 

[LarryS]

Dreaming is not reality.

Take a ball, drop it, how does idealism describe the event?

Do you mean the observation of the falling ball, or the event itself? By the event itself, do you mean the consistent behavior of the ball falling? (I may be buying time with this question.)

There are different flavors of Idealism, but most flavors would state that the ball does not have an intrinsic physical existence independent of consciousness. Most flavors of Idealism state that the observer does not create or imagine the ball into existence, nor does the observation create the falling of the ball.

Rather, Idealism states that the observer, the ball and the event occur in consciousness. (where materialism states the observer, the ball and the event occur in matter)

 

[LarryS]

Dreaming is not reality.

Take a ball, drop it, how does idealism describe the event?

BTW, how does materialism describe the event, by that I mean, how does materialism explain the consistency of gravity (in a purely material framework)?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Evolutionist offers evidence for evolution. Creationist is unhappy with the evidence. What has creationist to offer in terms of evidence? Zilch, nada.

materialist offers working definition of 'up' and ' down'. Very sketchy I admit, but I think the point is clear, We all have a consistent notion of what is up and what is down. It works. It allows Boeing to build aircraft that can fly and touch down safely. It allows skyscrapers to be built, and those that lay skyscrapers' foundations to do there work. etc. Idealist is unhappy with the quality of the definition. What has idealist has to offer in terms of defining 'up' and 'down'? Nothing. That's what I mean.. traits.. pseudo-knowledge. Thanks for the data-point! (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.)

Now, be the first one here to explain idealism in a coherent fashion. Explain how it is better and in what way to materialism. Thus far I've seen nothing but word soup that makes the phrase 'idealism is an incoherent position' an error of category. Until such time I'm sticking with my working hypothesis that I alluded to in my parody a page or so back: that idealism is nothing but a bold assertion cloaked in phraseology that is designed to make it sound profound.

(Funny.. I'm having a deja-vu of directing a similar paragraph at 9/11 truthers).

Okay, I will try.
First we need the fallacy of the excluded middle in order for us to be able to doubt whether we have overlooked something. I.e. to reduce everything/reality/the universe down to either A or B may overlook something. Further instead of concentrating of what reality is, I will in the rest of my answer rely on e-prime and also avoid the use of the verb exist.

I will list what I assume you take for granted:
We can in general trust our senses.
We rate our explanations according to evidence, logic and utility(works better).

Now the question becomes one of whether materialism holds for all cases of a combination of we and better.
In other words if we for all contexts of two or more humans can consider this one context and add up the different persons (you, I, he, she and so no) to a we for which only one kind of better apply and all other claims result in no evidence but amounts to errors and so on.
So here it goes:

Claim: All cases of explanations amounts to a case of the combination of we and better.
Answer: No, because two or more people do not amount to one context in all cases. While reality in some cases appears the same for all humans (e.g. gravity), we still need to check if that holds for all cases or if we need to allow of variation. In short if for at least one case of better I can show that this better do not hold for all humans but varies according to the given individual.

So for the categories of all, something, something else and nothing I will have to ask you if you according to all, better and works can shown that it does not apply with variation for something and something else in at least one case. In other words have you checked if you haven't made an error in regards to your usage and apply a form of falsification to we versus you and I.

I will generalize it here for you:
Someone: All cases of we, better and work have only one general possible outcome. Just as gravity works the same for all humans so do all other aspects of reality.
Someone else: No! This no takes places and marks the difference between something and something else. While I accept that reality seems to function in a interconnected manner and thus a we sometimes apply, though this we has it limitations.

So here comes the refutation:
Someone(S1): I can speak with evidence in all cases for all humans as we for the case of works better.
S2: Yes.
S3: No.

Now this connects all the way down to the replication of the fittest genome and relates to this piece of epistemology.

1. Dissent – the uncertainty of the rules of common life, and of the opinions of philosophers
2. Progress ad infinitum – All proof requires some further proof, and so on to infinity.
3. Relation – All things are changed as their relations become changed, or, as we look upon them from different points of view.
4. Assumption – The truth asserted is merely a hypothesis.
5. Circularity – The truth asserted involves a vicious circle.

I have used in practice 1 and 3 and simply shown that we can hold different opinions and everything doesn't not amounts to one universal point of view. The technical term generally used for this goes by the name of cognitive relativism and in practice means that the replication of the fittest genome results in some form of relativism for some aspects of reality, but not all (apparently).

So I have avoided metaphysics and combined logic, epistemology and ethics to show you that everything does not reduce down to either materialism or idealism, because if you think differently about better at least one version of better changes.
In other words - can an idealist in fact believe differently that you?

With regards

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

There's a thread that is quite active I challenge you: your best argument for materialism that is - as you can probably guess - all about the best arguments for why materialism is "correct". There have been several members that have posted who have argued by assertion that there is an alternate to materialism that is as successful (or more so) at predicting and describing the reality we exist in.

Rather than derailing that thread I'd thought I'd start this one so they can put forward their alternate (or alternates).

Anyone willing to kick this thread off?

Directed in general at the false dichotomy between only materialism and idealism.

Why do I always as a skeptic have to accept that we have to start with metaphysics (and ontology) and further accept that if I don't think like you it means I can only understand reality like a theist/idealist. Can't you think outside the box?

With regards

PS - try just for the fun of it to avoid all usage of be and exist. You can do skepticism after all and question/doubt good/better/best.

 

[Dancing David]

materialist offers working definition of 'up' and ' down'. Very sketchy I admit, but I think the point is clear, We all have a consistent notion of what is up and what is down. It works.

Hi,
That is language not materialism.

 

[barehl]

Idealistic framework is the measuring aspect and materialist framework is the measured aspect.

That might work in terms of philosophy; I can't be sure since I don't claim to be an expert on philosophy. However, it doesn't work in cognitive theory since you get a contradiction. Cognitive theory covers mind. I assume though that you can't do Idealism without a mind.

 

[barehl]

So the only working definition of down you have is anthropocentric and not observer independent.

I have to admit that this could be one of the funniest statements that I have seen. Are you seriously asking for an abstract term that is comprehensible by a human but is independent of human comprehension?

 

[barehl]

Okay, I will try.
First we need the fallacy of the excluded middle

You've already skipped too much. You are assuming that you already have a working mind with abstract comprehension. How do you get to that point in a non-material framework without claiming that a fully functioning mind popped into existence?

 

[tsig]

I have to admit that this could be one of the funniest statements that I have seen. Are you seriously asking for an abstract term that is comprehensible by a human but is independent of human comprehension?

Some German philosophers have achieved this, if I understand them right.

 

[punshhh]

Ahh so admit it could be just an appearance of a knower and the known

Yes, if there is an idealistic ontology for example.

"In order to know something the knower has to both exist and be real," is a huge assumption, remember that automata the p-zombie? It has exactly the same experience...

It thinks it is a knower and that it knows something...

No it doesn't have experience and it doesn't know anything. However it does store data and process that data in an equivalent way to how a human does, with the same behavioural outcome. It is entirely devoid of consciousness.

I still have not been given an explanation of why an automata can not in theory emulate all the processing of the brain in the absence of consciousness.

 

[punshhh]

You've already skipped too much. You are assuming that you already have a working mind with abstract comprehension. How do you get to that point in a non-material framework without claiming that a fully functioning mind popped into existence?

Everything popped into existence anyway, didn't it?